Ex Post Facto Ratification Cannot Validate Service Termination Issued by an Authority Lacking Statutory Disciplinary Competence

The Petitioner, an Assistant Registrar at Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute (VPCI), was dismissed on February 18, 2013, following a major penalty inquiry.

This dismissal was set aside by the High Court in 2014 because the Governing Body (GB) lacked the authority to institute proceedings under Rule 69 of the 1971 Rules, which vested such power in the Executive Council (EC).

Despite subsequent appeals and a 2015 EC resolution delegating powers prospectively, the High Court (in contempt and LPA proceedings) held the original defect remained uncured.

On May 2, 2017, VPCI issued a fresh termination order based on a new EC Resolution (No. 32 of 2017), which "endorsed" the 2013 dismissal and claimed the GB had always been the competent authority since 1955.

The Petitioner challenged this second termination.

Rule 69 of the University Non-Teaching Employees (Terms & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1971, which mandates that disciplinary proceedings be instituted only by the Executive Council or an authority specifically empowered by it.

The principle from Marathwada University v. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan that an action taken by an authority lacking statutory competence is void ab initio and cannot be cured by subsequent ratification.

The doctrine from Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath and Union of India v. S.K. Jasra, which establish that the lack of approval by a competent disciplinary authority at the initiation stage renders the entire proceeding non est.

The Court reasoned that the 1955 Resolution only conferred the power to "appoint" and did not expressly delegate disciplinary authority under the 1971 Rules.

The Court noted that the Delhi University itself had previously admitted in court that no such delegation existed.

The Court found the 2017 Resolution was not a fresh exercise of power but an attempt at "retrospective validation" of a void 2013 decision.

The Court distinguished the Respondents' reliance on Pannalal Choudhury, noting that in the present case, there was no contemporaneous authorization or monitoring by the EC during the 2011–2013 proceedings; the EC only intervened years later to "endorse" a concluded, unauthorized act.

Thus, the foundational defect identified in the first round of litigation persisted.

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the termination order dated May 2, 2017, ordered the Petitioner’s reinstatement, but granted the Respondents liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings via the competent authority under the 1971 Rules within four weeks.